Allahabad Court May 1913 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lachmi NaraIn Alias Munnuji Vs. Ram Charan Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All425
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the court below under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Two decrees were obtained against one Musammat Dropadi, in execution of which certain property was attached. Lachmi Narain objected to the attachment and sale of that property on the ground that it belonged to him and not to the judgment-debtor. His objection was disallowed and he then brought a suit to establish his right. In the course of that suit he applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant decree-holder from putting the property to sale. The lower court has refused the application, merely remarking that the applicant can deposit the decree money. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from the order. It is contended that Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (r), merely relates to an order granting an injunction, but not to an order refusing to grant an injunction. In our opinion, an order refusing as well as ...
Kundan Lal and anr. Vs. Wahid-un-nissa and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-15-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All427
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. The suit was dismissed by the court of first instance as neither of the parties appeared. One party went up in appeal to the court below, which entertained the appeal, set aside the order of dismissal and directed that the first court should hear the case. The opposite party has come up in second appeal, and it is urged that no appeal lies. On behalf of the appellants it is urged that an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (u), of the Code of Civil Procedure. This order relates to orders passed by appellate courts under Order XLI, Rule 23. In the present case the order passed by the court below is clearly not an order under Order XLI, Rule 23, and therefore under Order XLIII, Rule 1, the appellants have no right of appeal. It is, therefore, clear that the preliminary objection must prevail. We are asked to treat this appeal as an application for revision. We decline to do so in the circums...
Sidheswari Prasad NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. GoshaIn Mayanand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All419
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Lyle, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to recover a sum of Rs. 15,200 in certain proportionate shares from the several defendants. The suit has been dismissed by the court below as being barred by limitation. The facts, for the purposes of the present appeal, may be taken as admitted. A decree-holder of the name of Mayanand Gir caused certain property to be put to sale in order to realize the amount of a decree. The property was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs. An objection was taken on the part of a claimant to the property in the execution proceedings, but the objection was disallowed with the result that the purchase in favour of the present plaintiff was confirmed on the 20th of May, 1907. The proceeds the sale were paid into court and were distributed amongst the persons who held decrees against the judgment-debtor of Mayanand Gir. Its distribution took place on the 1st of July, 1907. Subsequently the claimant ...
Sona Dei and anr. Vs. Fakir Chand and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All412
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendants certain offerings which had been made on the occasion of the death of one Rai Bahadur Debi Singh, It appears that the plaintiff and the defendant are both members of the same family of Maha-Brahmans, the common ancestor of which was one Dhan Singh. Both the courts below have found that an arrangement had been come to between the members of the family with a view to the division of the offerings. Certain members of the family were to have certain days of the month and certain other members, other days. Both the courts below have found that the offerings in question were made on a day which belonged to the plaintiff. But the plaintiff's suit was dismissed upon the ground that the offerings in question were personal offerings, made to Fakir Chand, the defendant.2. It is admitted that so far as the donor of these offerings is concerned, no court could interfere to compe...
Sri Kishan Lal Vs. Kashmiro and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-09-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All445
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Banerji, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the court below exceeded Rs. 10,000, but that of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council is Rs. 8,767-2-0, that is, below Rs. 10,000. The decree of this Court reversed the decree of the court below. It is contended that, under Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has a right to appeal to His Majesty in Council, because the decree of this Court involves, directly or indirectly, a claim or question respecting property of Value exceeding Rs. 10,000. The question in this case was whether an arbitration award was binding upon Musammat Kashmiro, one of the respondents to the proposed appeal. It is admitted that the award relates to property far exceeding Rs. 10,000 in value. This Court held, reversing the decision of the court below, that the award was not binding on the lady for reasons stated in this Court...
Thakur Prasad Vs. Panno Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-07-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All410
Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. The facts of the case, out of which this appeal arises, are as follows: The appellant is a secured creditor of an insolvent. He was a mortgagee in possession. A receiver was appointed by the court, and it appears that on the 20th of September, 1911, he took possession of the property in question. On the 31st of October, 1911, the present appellant made an application under Section 22 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to the court asking it to reverse the act of the receiver and to restore him to possession, he being a secured creditor. The learned District Judge held that as the application was made more than twenty-one days after the act complained of had been done, it was time-barred. He accordingly rejected the application. On appeal before us it is urged that the act complained of did not come to the notice of the appellant on the date when it was done or soon after it and the appellant went to the court without delay, and therefore the court ought ...
Sheodan Singh and ors. Vs. Brijraj Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-05-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All337
Moulton, J.1. This is a suit brought by two brothers, Rao Karan Singh and Kunwar Sheodan Singh (with whom are joined as plaintiffs their respective sons Kunwar Shibraj Singh and Kunwar Ranbir Singh), against the widow and son of their eldest brother Rao Sultan Singh, claiming a partition of certain properties which they allege to be the joint and undivided property of the family to which they belong, in which they are entitled to a two-thirds share. The defence is that the properties originally belonging to the family were the subject of a division by a family arrangement made and acted upon in 1895 during the life-time of the father of the plaintiffs, and that thenceforward the properties ceased to be held jointly, and that those properties of which the defendants are in possession came to them under that family arrangement and became and still remain their separate property.2. The principal subject of dispute is village property. But the considerations arise. It will be convenient in...
Balgobind Bhagat and anr. Vs. Nagina Misir and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All405
Henry Richards, Kt. C.J. and Lyle, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed the sum of Rs. 499-15-0 principal and Rs. 270 interest. In the alternative they claimed that they might be put into possession of certain property. The court of first instance gave a simple money decree. The lower appellate court reversed the decree of the court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiffs suit; hence this appeal.2. It appears that certain property, consisting partly of a fixed rate holding and partly of an occupancy holding was transferred by way of usufructuary mortgage to Nagina Misir in 1906. In 1909 Nagina Misir purported to make a sub-mortgage of the same property in favour of the plaintiffs. There can be no doubt that the mortgage of 1906, in so far as it purported to mortgage an occupancy holding, was absolutely void. Indeed we think, though it is not essential for the decision of the present case to decide the point, that the whole mortgage of 1906 was in...
Amin-ud-dIn Haidar Vs. Sheoraj Singh
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All402
Knox and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.1. Hakim Amin-ud-din is a judgment-debtor of one Kunwar Sheoraj Singh. There were proceedings in the court of Shahjahanpur prior to the proceedings out of which these proceedings have risen and with regard to those proceedings it is sufficient to say that Hakim Amin-ud-din did apply to be declared an insolvent. He was declared an insolvent and he was discharged under Section 351 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. These proceedings relating to his discharge have been laid before us and we have examined them. We find that in one of them, i.e., an order by the District Judge, dated the 27th of January, 1904, it is set out, 'no other creditor except Ratan Lal proves his claim to-day, though called upon.' It was doubtless for this reason that no schedule was prepared and very properly so; for a schedule cannot be prepared by a court until the creditors have proved their claims. This was the law under the procedure prevailing up to the passing of the Provinci...
Emperor Vs. Nepal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-01-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR35All407
Tudball, J.1. The thirteen applicants have been convicted of offences under Sections 147, 225B and 332 of the Indian Penal Code. Their convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal. The present application for revision raises two points--(1) That the arrest without a warrant of Nepal by the police was illegal and therefore the resistance offered to the police constituted no offence, and (2) that the sentences are too severe. According to the evidence on the record, the Sub-Inspector, Har Parsad, deputed certain police officers subordinate to himself to arrest Nepal against whom the police were about to take proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to his being bound over to be of good behaviour. According to the evidence, the police officer in question gave a written order to his subordinate officer to carry out this arrest. The plea in revision is that in the absence of the authority under chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the police ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›